Clear and Present Danger: Are We on the Eve of War With North Korea?

Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently said that North Korea's advancing nuclear missile programs present the most urgent threat to U.S. national security. In fact, he said they're a "clear and present danger."

"That is war talk. When you have the Defense Secretary saying 'clear and present danger' that is law talk for a reason to go to war," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

The U.S. reportedly has three aircraft carrier groups off the coast of North Korea.

"Anytime we have ever launched a strike of any kind where the country is near water, we have had three aircraft carrier groups in the area. That's the only time that has happened in our past," Glenn said.

Consulting Jason Buttrill, head researcher/writer for The Glenn Beck Program and former intelligence analyst, Glenn asked about this telling move.

"Can you think of a way that this ends well?" Glenn asked.

"No, not at all," Jason replied.

Based on the language used by Secretary Mattis, Jason believes the U.S. could very well be setting up for a preemptive strike.

"We have not seen this kind of buildup except on the eve of war. And it's not good . . . it could change the entire world overnight," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: By the way, I don't know if you saw this: Defense Secretary Mattis said that North Korea's advancing nuclear missile programs were the most urgent threat to national security. In fact, yesterday he said, quote, they're a clear and present danger. That is war talk.

When you have the Defense Secretary saying, "Clear and present danger," that is -- that's law talk for a reason to go to war.

We have three aircraft carrier groups now off the coast of North Korea. The only time that we can find, that we have ever put three aircraft carrier groups together was right before the Gulf War. And before that, I think it was Bosnia. Any time we have ever launched a strike of any kind where the country is near water, we have had three aircraft carrier groups in the area. That's the only time that has happened in our past.

Hopefully, this is nothing to see here. But with that and Mattis saying clear and present danger, the world could change overnight.

[break]

GLENN: Jason, can you give me an update on the aircraft carriers in North Korea.

JASON: So we now have three that are hovering around the Korean Peninsula. Hasn't been seen since every other time we've actually gone to war. Kosovo, First Iraq War, Second Iraq War. That's the kind of troop movement and buildup we're seeing.

GLENN: We don't have -- I want to make sure this is clear: We don't have three aircraft carriers in a region unless we're going to war. That's the pattern.

JASON: Historically.

GLENN: Okay.

What about the Secretary of Defense saying yesterday that North Korea is a clear and present danger?

JASON: Sounds like they're setting up a preemptive action to me.

GLENN: Can you think of a way that this ends well?

JASON: No. Not at all.

GLENN: Leon, when I was in -- when Pat and I were in Baltimore, we used to call the pizza places around the Pentagon. Do you remember this, Pat? The pizza places --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We knew that when the pizza places would say tons of pizzas ordered for the Pentagon last night -- this was before the internet or anything. This was like 1989, we knew that when the pizza places were delivering at night, we were on the eve or a couple of days away from war.

Any sign that you have seen that this is going to end really horribly?

JASON: It's extremely difficult to predict, you know, anything pertaining to Korea. You know, their thought processes are not kind of in keeping with our traditional kind of game theory is. This is part of what makes it so difficult to react to them rationally. So we hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

GLENN: We have -- we have not seen this kind of buildup, except on the eve of war. And it's not good. And it could change -- it could change the entire world overnight.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.